Proposed digital copy protection legislation (MANY USEFUL LINKS) (1 Viewer)

[MickeS]

On the Swedish site http://www.dvdforum.nu , there have been several comments about this the past few days, because one of Sweden's top selling artists, a band called Kent, just released their latest CD, and it's protected by Key2Audio. The annoying thing is that it does NOT play on many DVD-players, which of course a lot of people use as their main player for CD's too.
I don't know if we'll be seeing Key2Audio more in the US too, but if that happens I think I'm out of luck, because I don't even own a CD-player, I play all my CD's through my Pioneer DVD-player...
/Mike

 

[Jeremy Jones]

Well, it comes down to this. If ANY computer software or hardware comes out that has this digital copyright protection, I'm not buying it. And, considering that most people who upgrade regularly are pretty computer literate and hip, I doubt they'd buy it either. And, if you're a company who isn't selling a lot of a product, you fix it to where you do. I've got a computer right now that plays ripped mp3's just fine. If I have to keep it with the current OS, oh well. I just won't be buying anything new from them. Trust me folks, letter writing and calling is great, but when you hit their pocketbooks, they REALLY listen.

 

[Jeremy Jones]

Oh, and one more thing. If history's taught us anything it's taught us that life (and hackers), uh, find a way. The dvd codes were UNBREAKABLE too, until someone broke them in less than a week. To quote Governor Tarkin, "All this bickering is pointless." The best they can do is delay the hacking that's going on. If you ask me, that's wasted money, if they're going to hack it successfully anyway. Their best bet is STOP PRICE GOUGING.

 

[JohnRice]

Their best bet is STOP PRICE GOUGING.

Bingo!
Many, if not even half of DVDs today are cheaper than the average CD. I wonder why DVDs are selling like crazy?

 

[AdrianJ]

Trust me folks, letter writing and calling is great, but when you hit their pocketbooks, they REALLY listen.

Isn't that what the digital revolution has done to these industries? Right now, it is just too easy for people to get things for free. As long as it is this easy for the average consumer to go out and get music or movie for free, then the average consumer will get it for free, regardless of the cost of legitimate items. The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to find a way to make it easier to buy legitimate items than to get them for free.

I'll probably get drummed out of HTF for my views. But what choice to these people have. They are in business to make money. The music industry declined almost 10% last year. It is obvious that you cannot rely on people to only use copyrighted material for fair use. That is the situation we have now and piracy is rampant.

I'd like to know what people see as alternatives? It's obvious that these industries cannot give away their products away for free.

 

[JohnRice]

The music industry declined almost 10% last year. It is obvious that you cannot rely on people to only use copyrighted material for fair use.

You are making a huge assumption here. The same assumption the music industry is making. There is no logical reason to think one is caused completely by the other. In fact, if content exchange was nearly as rampant as the industry claims, the business would have declined 80% or 90%, not 10%.

I, for one, thought Napster was a clear intention to rip off the industry, as well as being distinctly illegal. What the music companies need to understand is that they will further damage their business by making their product unusable. Am I going to buy a CD that I know probably won't work on many of the players I try? NO! In fact, that would drive me to find another source for a copy I know will work.

The Music studios are also getting into a bad habit that the movie studios are just starting to get out of. They dump fortunes into new "products," many of which end up tanking. A lot of money wasted. They don't allow musicians any time to develop because everyone they support is 16 years old and most are washed up by 20. Take No Doubt for example. Their original studio didn't have the patience and finally ended up actually trying to destroy them. Now they are a big hit and making millions for someone else. Who's fault is that?

 

[MickeS]

It's obvious that these industries cannot give away their products away for free.

They need to do something, that's true. But the way to go is not to infringe on our fair use rights, or to make CD's unplayable in equipment that a lot of us use for legal playback of CD's.

I don't know what they should do. All I know is that an industry that pays an artist $50 million NOT to make records can't be in that much trouble, and should be able to figure something out.

/Mike

 

[Kevin P]

I honestly do not think that the decline in sales is necessarily because of the Internet.

You're absolutely right. The decline in sales is due in part by the recession and the rest because most music is garbage these days. People just don't want to pay $16-20 for a CD with just one or two good tracks on it, when they're having troubles making ends meet.

The record companies are using the supposed decline in sales as an excuse (blaming the internet) to put in all kinds of draconian legislation and copy protection technology into their products. Of course, it'll backfire ultimately. To quote one of my favorite movies: "The more you tighten your grip, Gov. Tarkin, the more systems will slip through your fingers."

KJP

 

[Thomas Newton]

The music industry declined almost 10% last year. It is obvious that you cannot rely on people to only use copyrighted material for fair use.

Over the last two years, my purchases of major-label CDs dropped by 50% compared to the previous years. None of the decline was due to illegal downloading of any kind, and there were many recordings that I wanted to buy and could have bought -- but didn't buy, and didn't download.

In my case, the music industry brought the sales loss upon themselves with SDMI and with more recent attempts to make broken pseudo-CDs. In response to to their actions, I stopped buying CDs that seemed most likely to be candidates for unadvertised SDMI watermarks. I also reduced purchases of back catalog CDs.

By the way, my purchases of CDs by artists on independent labels held steady.

I doubt that I'm alone. The more the music industry treats good, paying customers as its enemies, the more it is going to be left only with the portion of the Napster demographic who don't want to pay for anything under any circumstances.

 

[Ted Todorov]

By the way, my purchases of CDs by artists on independent labels held steady.

I doubt that I'm alone. The more the music industry treats good, paying customers as its enemies, the more it is going to be left only with the portion of the Napster demographic who don't want to pay for anything under any circumstances.

I totally agree. I have been a CD consumer since 1985, I have bought around 1000 CDs for myself and countless more for friends and family. But now, I buy almost exclusively independent or self-released CDs. The record industry is doing a great job of insulting and alienating their best customers.

I will not buy copy-protected "CDs".

Ted

 

[Rachael B]

Great thread! I love boycotts... I once went nearly two weeks without eating grapes, thanks Woody! I've thought it would come to this for a long time. The so-called "Big Five" are the opposition. Count them on your fingers and go oh...! They're all in the movie biz too, notice, notice. All my purchases are on hold. I have only one DVD on preorder.
I'm really put out with the "the content monopolies". I've been one of their best customers for a long time. I don't like being slapped, repeatedly. Enough said!
I suppourt creator's "moral Righs". Merci beaucoup to the French for this concept! Imagine it happening? Some musical artists might prohibit 5.1 remixes. Some director's like, Kubrick, might decree 1.33 to 1 aspect ratios? Some would decree that their B & W films could never be colourized, like Woody Allen has, would. What do you think Scorsese thinks? Duh! Musicans and directors deserve this, it's long overdo. Moral Rights, to me, are consistent with natural rights.
Think of the long-term effects of having a few, 5 or 6 perhaps, controlling all broadcasting/netcasting/whatever-casting. They might merge down to even fewer? Could we even trust the nightly newscast? If you equate broadcasting with power, as I do... Wouldn't it be bad for a very few companies to gobble up the market, that's what's been happening.
Besides, CD's and DVD's, what else would we need to boycott? Disney owned TV Networks, ect. , ect. The list could get pretty long? The WB Network, Paramount's network, hmnn. Damn, this will be hard for me. I have loved giving my money to the ungrateful ones. Paying for cable TV, doesn't this suppourt the Big Five? The power is already in very few hands.
A boycott could be hard, given how bad most of us rely on our electronic stuff. Think about it. Damn, I'll miss my weekly stolls through Busted Buy and The Disc Exchange. Of course I won't stop playing what I already own... I suspect I really need to re-view and relisten to most of my collection of platter-shaped things that make audio and video anyway.
I really wouldn't want to do all this but the Big Five shouldn't control __________? I sincerely believe Dr. Evil is behind all this, don't you? I wish is was that simple! Where could a boycott go...?
Could there be a class action lawsuit?

 

[Bob_J_M]

I'm new to this intiguing discussion. I don't think anyone officially confirmed that the music industry now blames plain old duplication of CDs as the culprit behind last year's losses and dismal sales so far this year. That's why they're trying desperate measures like key2audio. Ouch! Shot myself in the foot again!

The current buzz is that Napster was actually good for business - or not bad, at least. As we know, Napster was a good way to expose yourself to a wider variety of music. The quality of typcial MP3s is bad enough that it makes people want to buy a CD if they really like the music.

The sad thing to me is the effect that home CD duplication is having on the used CD stores in my town. Buisness is way, way down - like 40% or so. This is a college town and all the college kids are simply copying each others collections to get the music they used to get from the used CD stores.

The MPAA is not lamenting the demise of used CD stores, I would think. However, there's trouble in the new CD stores, too. My favorite ultra-hip disc store says that they are selling blank CDs at an astounding rate while sales of pre-recorded CDs have been dismal. So there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up the music industry's claim.

The big 5 have become desperate and dumb. They've cut out sensible artist development and are now simply looking for the next big score - pouring tons of money into few artists. They stopped making singles, abandoning an important price point and forcing kids with less $ into piracy.

I'm sympathetic, though. The consumer electronics industry keeps coming out with these great, convenient gadgets that make copyright infringement so easy and fun and cheap and fast. How can we expect these entertainment business to react to this? For a century, their business model has been built around the premise that a copyrighted performance could be bound to a physical object, which can then be manufactured and distributed and sold like a toaster. Copyright law is built around this premise, too. Ugh! It's going to take some time to re-tool the buisness models and get the copyright law revamped.

I am solidly pro-technological copy protection, as long as its properly done in advance, integrated with the machines and standardized so it remains mostly invisible. Logically, I don't see any other way to compensate creative people for their work.

 

[Bob_J_M]

I'm new to this intiguing discussion. I don't think anyone officially confirmed that the music industry now blames plain old duplication of CDs as the culprit behind last year's losses and dismal sales so far this year. That's why they're trying desperate measures like key2audio. Ouch! Shot myself in the foot again!

The current buzz is that Napster was actually good for business - or not bad, at least. As we know, Napster was a good way to expose yourself to a wider variety of music. The quality of typcial MP3s is bad enough that it makes people want to buy a CD if they really like the music.

The sad thing to me is the effect that home CD duplication is having on the used CD stores in my town. Buisness is way, way down - like 40% or so. This is a college town and all the college kids are simply copying each others collections to get the music they used to get from the used CD stores.

The MPAA is not lamenting the demise of used CD stores, I would think. However, there's trouble in the new CD stores, too. My favorite ultra-hip disc store says that they are selling blank CDs at an astounding rate while sales of pre-recorded CDs have been dismal. So there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up the music industry's claim.

The big 5 have become desperate and dumb. They've cut out sensible artist development and are now simply looking for the next big score - pouring tons of money into few artists. They stopped making singles, abandoning an important price point and forcing kids with less $ into piracy.

I'm sympathetic, though. The consumer electronics industry keeps coming out with these great, convenient gadgets that make copyright infringement so easy and fun and cheap and fast. How can we expect these entertainment business to react to this? For a century, their business model has been built around the premise that a copyrighted performance could be bound to a physical object, which can then be manufactured and distributed and sold like a toaster. Copyright law is built around this premise, too. Ugh! It's going to take some time to re-tool the buisness models and get the copyright law revamped.

I am solidly pro-technological copy protection, as long as its properly done in advance, integrated with the machines and standardized so it remains mostly invisible. Logically, I don't see any other way to compensate creative people for their work.

 

[MickeS]

Logically, I don't see any other way to compensate creative people for their work.

How are software developers compensated? Are they paid differently based on the sales of the product, or do they get a salary? I don't know, but whatever system they are using should work for musicians too, I would think.

/Mike

 

[Ryan Wright]

How are software developers compensated? Are they paid differently based on the sales of the product, or do they get a salary?

Almost all get a salary just like any other job.

 

[MickeS]

Ryan, you make a great point about tapes.

I used to borrow albums from friends and tape them all the time, and they borrowed albums from me and did the same. That didn't mean that the record industry lost money, because I wouldn't have bought those albums in the first place; the only thing that happened was that I was exposed to more music and thus was more likely to buy something by a band I had taped before the next time I bought an album, since I knew I liked them, instead of buying an unknown album. It worked like marketing.

I think copying CD's work much the same way, and I think that the sales of more blank CD's is probably reflected in a decline of tape sales.

The main difference is of course that you can make a copy-of-a-copy of a CD, this increasing the likelyhood of real piracy. I thought however that this was prevented in sotware and hardware (I haven't tried it myself). That is a copy-restriction that I gladly support, I believe that copies of copies will increase the likelyhood of lost record sales.

Almost all get a salary just like any other job.

I wonder why musicians (or actors, or other artists) can't get paid the same way? Wouldn't that eliminate a lot of the basis for the complaints about piracy?

/Mike

 

[Ryan Wright]

Quote:

No, because the same group would be complaining: The RIAA member studios. Only difference is they wouldn't have the "your actions hurt artists" trump card. They could care less about the artists. The fact is that most artists only get a small handful of pennies when you buy an album, and aside from some high profile bitching (Metallica), many artists have no problem with peer to peer file sharing. They aren't losing money - most don't get any to begin with. The STUDIOS are losing money.
Put the artists on a regular pay scale like any other employee and the studio will only scream louder. Only then people will care even less, because they'll know for a fact they're only hurting a government enforced mega-monopoly.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know what it isn't. Treating all of your customers like crooks is a bad way to go. The industry is driving consumers away in droves.
I propose this as a possible solution: Drop the price of CDs to $10 a pop, the same as tapes. Let consumers download entire albums in unrestricted/unencrypted plain old MP3 format (128-320 VBR encoded) from fast servers for $8. Sell singles for $2 a piece on CD and $1 a piece as downloadable MP3s. Let consumers mix and match their own CDs at the $2 per track price from any album in your library. Hell, I could write web based software to take a custom order and burn the CD from a huge file archive in less than a month, a team of programmers could create a fully fault tolerant system capable of handling huge volume in 2 or 3 months easy. Lastly, lay the heck off the file trading services. Leave them alone and let people trade files.
I propose that the industry try this approach for six months to see what happens. For crying out loud, how many billions do they make every year? Even if the whole experiment is a flop, they'll STILL make money that year. Or heck, make it three months. Tell people it's a big sale and it's not going to last, then if it flops you can put prices right back where they were and call it a day.
And, oh, give the freaking artists more of the money! For crying out loud...
I predict sales would go through the roof. Yes, even given the fact that people can download it for free. At $1 a track, it's not worth my effort to find a crappy quality song on Gnutella and wait an hour to get it from joemama87's dial up connection. I'd be happy to pay for this.

 

[Thomas Newton]

How are software developers compensated? Are they paid differently based on the sales of the product, or do they get a salary? I don't know, but whatever system they are using should work for musicians too, I would think.

Software engineers typically work for salaries and benefits that are consistent with those paid for other kinds of highly skilled engineering labor. The employers provide the workplace, pay for all of the tools needed to make the products, and keep the copyrights. There are no royalty payments. (This is not the only arrangement, just a common one.)

With major-label recording contracts, the bands pay for recording expenses out of their advance (loan) money, and may also be forced to pay for things that the labels want (e.g., music videos) out of this money. The labels do not pay salaries to the bands. The labels are supposed to pay royalties. These royalties are rarely much more than 15% and that is before several rather creative deductions for promotional CDs, LP breakage rates, and in some cases the use of "new technology" (a.k.a. CDs!).

If sales of an album are not enough for royalties to pay back the advance, the debt gets carried forward against any other monies the band might get. If the advance is repaid in full, the record label continues to own the copyright -- even though the band provided the creative input, paid for the recording, and provided the record company with a tidy return on its loan in the process. (It's a good thing that home mortgages and car loans don't work this way!)

What happens to musicians under this model is best described as feast or famine. If you become a top-level superstar, you might sell enough albums to become rich, or at least well off, in spite of the record company's one-sided deal. If you are a mid-level artist or below, you better not count on record sales to put food on your table, even if your music is making money for the record company. As producer Steve Albini put it (describing the numbers for a hypothetical new band), "the band members got paid less than they would at a job saying 'Do you want fries with that?', but at least they got to ride around on a bus" (paraphrase, from memory).

Even at the superstar level, it's not all fun and games. The Dixie Chicks sold 20+ million albums that conservatively generated $200+ million at retail. One of the Chicks said on Sixty Minutes that she had yet to see even $1 million of that ... but that Sony had built a gleaming new headquarters building in Nashville (implying that was where the money really went). I believe that the Dixie Chicks also stopped recording albums for Sony over royalty issues (which probably leaves them tied up in limbo, unable to record albums for anyone else).

 

[Thomas Newton]

That is a copy-restriction that I gladly support, I believe that copies of copies will increase the likelyhood of lost record sales.

Around the time of the DAT fight, Senator Gore (who proposed requiring SCMS) made comments to the effect that the real solution would be to change the copyright laws to make things easy for copy protection. It was pretty clear that he wasn't referring to protecting the public's rights.

Years later, when Gore was VP, we got the DMCA with the provision that protects "technological protection" even when it blocks lawful use ... and with a mandate for VCRs to malfunction when they detect MacroVision. Coincidence?

 

[Bob_J_M]

A few comments:
Ryan,
Although I wholeheartedly agree with your proposed pricing and distribution scheme for music (If it's so obvious to so many people, why don't they get it!?), I must quibble with your shooting-down of my analysis (actually not my analysis, but one I believe in). You said

Your data does not support your conclusion. College kids have had the ability to copy music effortlessly for decades. Dual deck cassette recorders were standard for a long, long time. Used tape stores and the recording industry in general did not go out of business. The more likely situation here is the fact that you can buy new CDs on the Internet for about the same price those used CD stores charge for, and you can buy used CDs online for just a few bucks. Copying has not changed: We've had that ability forever. What has changed is that we now have a nationwide marketplace in the form of the Internet and used CD stores can't (or won't) compete.

Once upon a time, I was a college kid. Let me tell you, cassette recorders were far from effortless. A few terms to jog your memory: bias, eq, record level, fixed tape lengths, hiss, hum, wow, flutter, distortion, Dolby, real-time recording, hand-copying of song names. The end product was invariably a poor substitute for the original. If you liked something, there was a strong motivation to buy the original. So it is with MP3's to a certain extent, though the MP3 recording process is comparitively trivial, foolproof and superior in audio quality (if you care to use the highest encoding rate). Do you really believe that a college kid would pass up the opportunity to borrow a CD they want from someone in their hall - and save a few bucks? If they can't borrow the CD, do you really think they would go through the hassle of buying a new or used CD via internet mail order rather than buying a copy from the local used disc store for $8-$10? To me, that does not have the ring of truth. How can you possibly say something like "copying has not changed?" Copying has changed exponentially and it continues to change. It becomes ever-easier, cheaper, faster and more perfect. For most of us, the technology is already sitting on our desks - all we have to do is buy a blank CD-R and figure out how to use the software. Given these changes in the efficiency, effectiveness and prevalence of copying equipment, it is only logical that copying should become more commonplace.
On a different note: I loathe the "tax on media" concept (as mentioned by Thomas Newton). It is an unfair and counterproductive way to collect and distribute revenue to musicians. My distaste for this method is part of my motivation for wanting the best possible built-in copy control.